From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 31 Jul 93 02:50:20 Subject: Re: multiple truths Sent UpdReq 93 Josh. Actually, you fail to understand the situation altogether. You see, the reason for communication in the O.T.O is not to simply "form an alliance" but to encourage and to stimulate kinda like these echoes do. It let's folks know that you're interested in Thelema and the Order. Also, I might wish to point out that the O.T.O is (oof course) an OUTER Order and as such is concerned with the physical/material world in general. This is a major point of the O.T.O's existence that many non-OTO members do not acknowledge. So many folks think that O.T.O is GD or AA or some other Order but it's not. O.T.O is the Old Bavarian Illuminati and all and it's goal is to change the world in a very practical way. Do you understand? I highly reccomend that you make a thorough study of the Constitution of O.T.O and the other documents of the Order to gain better insight into what the Order is here to do. You see, the Order has it's own guidelines. It is not a teaching order. It is not a hand-holding order. The Order really assumes that the member who joins is already a magician of some sort and/or is willing to study to become a magician. Read what Crowley had to write about O.T.O and A.'. A.'. and their differences and you will understand. Really, if someone joins the O.T.O and finds it "too political" for their tastes then they had no business joining the Order to begin with, IMO. The Order is Thelemic but we must also acknowledge that it is a huge structure and as such needs internal support and form. Anyone who denies this hasn't really analysed the situation. BTW, was PVN ever in O.T.O? (Caliphate which, BTW, is the _only_ *real* O.T.O.) ;) Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Walter Five 31 Jul 93 03:04:58 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS Sent UpdReq Indeed. I've seen a few flakes and freaks take about up to First (where they normally bail out) and when they leave, they try to destroy as much as they can before they can get out. Kinda sucks. Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 31 Jul 93 03:12:14 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS Sent UpdReq Hlpe yourself and don't be. Truth be told, I don't think you've ever seen what one person with a cleptomaniac personallity can do to a library or a temple. I know of a few cases where libraries, temple furnishings, robes, etc. were stolen by persons who were of sufficient degree to be trusted unsupervised, etc. Simply put, some folks do join O.T.O and just go crazy(er). The Current 93 is nothing to be sneezed at at all. Also, I pray thee to note that a person who is "of full age, free, and of good report" may join the order. Coul we not also assume that by "free" we could mean free of personal demons and/or mental malidies? I' I'm not saying that everybody with a mental hang-up should be turned away, just that Lodges, Oases, etcv. etc. should probably do a better job of "meeting" folks to amke sure that these folks are compitent to make their own decisions. This is my #1 rant and that is communication. People really can't understand my true motives on alot of this one because they are rather personal but, if you'll leave me you're private snail-mail address, I'll send you a detailed report on why I take such a major concern on these points. Until then, let us say that I am perceiving all of this from a uniquely quallified perspective. ;) Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: Thelema To: Fir 28 Jul 93 23:11:00 Subject: THE G.D. UpdReq > Maybe my friend was serious when he mentioned initiations via > video tape. He's of a different GD order. I think your friend was serious. Wassail, Grendel Grettisson 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gypse Area: Thelema To: All 28 Jul 93 00:37:12 Subject: Unicursal Hexagram UpdReq G & S to All, I am requesting a bit of assistance in my search for the symbology associated with the Unicursal Hexagram. I feel that this is the appropriate echo to do so in, being that I have heard of its "virtues" being utilized by Thelemites.It also sees the area where I would get little bullshit on the subject, pardon my mucked up grammar. My intentions for obtaining the information is for my studies pertaining to my Path.On that note, please do the Occult community a favour, and assist this youmg ,budding oocultist who is stuck in the swamplands and woods in finding this bit of information (the violins dramatically begin to fade now into a "comunity service message)Do the occult comunity a favor by helping "young, budding isolated occultists(start the laugh tracks and violins again) be less ignorant of subjects such as the symbology associated with the Unicursal Hexagram." Then again, I could post in the Channeling echo......NOT!!!!! IN laughter , determination, love and bad humour, Or better yet.......LOVE *WILL gyp se ...."When there is a Will,there is a Way,but a whim soon fades." 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Walter Five Area: Thelema To: Frater Almost 30 Jul 93 02:08:10 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS Rec'd UpdReq Yeah, the Order does seem to get Gods own bounty of flakes and nuts--gods! sounds like I'm endorsing a brand of Granola! "That's right kids! Crowley Crunchies! Take out the Flakes and Nuts and there's still ALL those Fruits! Suprise Goetic Invocation in every box!" We aren't the only ones though. I think we need to look to our initiators on this one--they're the ones who really are to be doing the checking. Or should be. We've had so many probs with this that we are hesitant to pick up minervals from other initiating bodies for membership in our camp. The book theives and coke freaks are bad enough, but the imbalanced and the slaves, man , you'd think their sponsors could have seen this shit coming! Blessed Beast! Walter 5 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Captain Rock Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 26 Jul 93 15:46:58 Subject: Re: MAGICK & THE LAW******* UpdReq Christeos Pir has been charged with the crime of consorting with Rose Dawn. The evidence: CP> > Just as long as it wasn't Kennesaw, GA! CP> RD> CP> RD> Why? What happens THERE? (Or do I want to know?) CP> CP> That was the town that voted, in reaction to a number of CP> jurisdictions CP> banning firearm ownership outright (Oak Park, IL, for example), CP> to CP> _require_ each head of a houshold to own at least one working CP> firearm. CP> CP> Doncha just hate when you gotta explain a joke? It's no joke. I lived there when that law was passed, and I'm in a position to tell you that the burglary rate there decreased by 70% immediately and for the following year, and has stayed at 50% less than rates previous to the passing of that law, every year since. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Captain Rock Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 26 Jul 93 16:08:10 Subject: Re: THE G.D. UpdReq Christeos Pir has been charged with the crime of consorting with Captain Rock. The evidence: CP> Back to the history books for you, bro. Is that so? Allow me to quote from Liber LXI, The History Lection: The ordeals were turned into contempt, it being impossible for anyone to fail therein. Unsuitable candidates were admitted for no better reason than their worldly prosperity. In short, the Order failed to initiate. 12. Scandal arose and with it schism. 13. In 1900 one P., a brother, instituted a rigorous test of S.R.M.D. on the one side and the Order on the other. 14. He discovered that S.R.M.D., though a scholar of some ability and a magician of remarkable powers, had never attained complete initiation: and further had fallen from his original place, he having imprudently attracted to himself forces of evil too great and terrible for him to withstand. The claim of the Order that the true adepts were in charge of it was definitely disproved. 15. In the Order, with two certain exceptions and two doubtful ones, he found no persons prepared for initiation of any sort. 16. He thereupon by his subtle wisdom destroyed both the Order and its chief. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 26 Jul 93 07:59:36 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. CP > Au contraire (NOT French for "bong-water"), it was definately > deliberate. Merde allors! Fais gaffe, tu m'fais mal--y'a que les minables, les refoules et les pauvres cons qui partousent de stup! > Aw, c'mon... you don't think he'd have been able to make money from > his fellow seekers, do ya? Nah--actually the speculation was more along the lines of "Does he mean we should make sure we're psychologically healthy before undertaking the Great Work?" or "Does he mean anyone wanting to practice magick must be clinically insane?" >RD> a bit about it. Isn't the author some sort of fundie who thinks heavy >RD> metal and D&D lead to dibbil-worship and murder and all kinds of other >RD> nasty things? > That's the one. Ou est-ce que *t'as* degotte c'trunc degueulasse? Sounds like same-o same-o to me...would you recommend a glance-through as a warning to the community (not the rabid fundie community, the occult community) about the kind of stuff being thrown around, or should I just keep right on not reading it? > Nonono (Yoko's brother?), I definately didn't mean that! As I've > noted > before, some people who seem to know what they're talking about > have > stated that there are _NO_ confirmed cases of Ritual Satanic Sexual > Abuse except for, as I said, a few incidences of mentally defective > teenagers with the "Satin Rulz!" idea of what good, sick fun is. Ce foutu truc est deprimant. I know, but the wording of the post I was responding to was a little confusing--wanted to make sure you knew I was talking about the instances of abuse trauma, NOT about "Satanic" Abuse, about which I think we're in agreement. > [continued next message] D'ac! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 26 Jul 93 08:52:40 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Part Duex ;> > You lost me at the end, there. "Wouldn't twist a braid behind > it...?" Oops, showing my age. Wouldn't get too upset about it, wouldn't think much about it. > OK. That's carrying the word "ritual" into a psychological usage > that I > wasn't considering, since I don't usually use it that way. Yes, a > lot > of obsessive or compulsive behavior could be termed ritualistic, > but > at first glance that, to me, linguistically reinforces the > anti-occult > attitude that runs through many, if not most, discussions on the > subject. Like using the word `satanic' (small "c") instead of > saying 'twisted,' 'sick,' or even 'evil.' OTOH, that's what the term "ritual" abuse was meant to originally suggest--a series of complex and repetitive actions, words, and/or symbology within the context of "regular" physical/sexual abuse, NOT abuse within the context of occult practices. Actually, I think it was "ritualistic"--a better term--before being co-opted by the "satanists in the woodpile" crowd. On second thought, though, you're right; use of the term, even with codifying explanation, would probably bring pentagrams-in-the-living-room to mind for most people. >RD> there is NO urge so strong that it can't be resisted. > Hmmm... I dont know if that's true across the board. Isn't that the > nature of compulsion, that the subject is unable to resist it? > > But as a Thelemite, I certainly agree with you that one needs to > take > responsibility for one's own actions, even if it's to go to legal > authorities and say, "I'm sick in the head. Put me away so I don't > hurt > anyone else." In fact, I wrote a guest rant for the Bahlasti Papers > on the subject of Responsibility a few months ago. I'd like to see it--the guest rant I mean. I wonder some about the reality of the "compulsion" concept. It's become something of a buzz-word, I think. How much of what people term "compulsions" are really IMPULSIONS--my personal guess would be quite a bit, unless we're talking about a deep psychosis. The "compulsion" to drink for an alcoholic for instance--people can and do resist the desire to get drunk when they know the effects would be too great. Someone with pedophilic tendencies wouldn't even have to go so far as to go to the law--the reporting requirements for therapists apply only if the act has already taken place, or if there's imminent danger, i.e., "I know I won't be able to resist raping my kid another night," etc. Psychiatric treatment could be sought *before* the harm is done. > Hehe... but I was apparently using a misnomer again. You're reading > more into my use of the words "sexually dysfuntional" than was > intended -- or less: I meant that the people were, yes, "sick." Do I Guess I was--it's another one of those buzz-words. I have a real problem with 'em by & large--the Bradshaw-esque stuff sets my teeth on edge. Dysfunctional families--inner children--blech! > understand you to say that there's no such thing as being criminally > insane? Or does it only not apply in the field of child abuse? It's not No, I accept that some people suffer from psychoses of various sorts, and it does apply in *some* cases of child abuse (not usually the sexual variety; more often battering). And to the extent that medication and psychiatric treatment is able to help such people, yes, it can be treated. At the risk of evoking thoughts of the "three types of Satanists" deal (not my intent), there basically *are* three "types" of child abusers. (1) Inadequate parents. Examples would be a 12-year-old girl with a baby of her own, or people who've been raised in the midst of abuse themselves, or within the foster-care system and have no example to follow, or people who are under huge amounts of stress and take it out on the kids *in that circumstance* not as an ongoing pattern. People in this category are very amenable to "treatment" in the form of education, financial assistance, and therapeutic counselling. (2) Clinically insane. A psychotic who thinks the baby is "possessed by demons" and has to beat/starve/etc. them out, someone so detached from reality that they are unable to take care of themselves, much less their kids. As I said, to the extent that psychopharmaceuticals and/or psychiatric treatment is *able* to help them, they may or may not be treatable. (3) The rest of 'em. Not trying to be flip here, but they're hard to categorize. I think sociopathy is the classification of choice these days. Strip away the jargon, and the definition of a sociopath is someone without empathy--without the ability to feel or consider the desires, pain, or pleasure of anyone but him/herself. But there are plenty of people who fit that diagnostic category very neatly, and do not engage in sexual abuse of children--corporate CEOs, Wall Street wizards, personal injury lawyers--oops, can't remember if lawyer-bashing is considered non-PC these days. Unfortunately, I think virtually all clinicians agree that once the developing "self" or "ego" is fully formed, sociopathy can't be treated. It can be intercepted, but not reversed. Even a glance at the recidivism rates among the MOST successful treatment programs makes it all too clear that so far, NO treatment has been anywhere close to successful for category 3. > as if we're talking about a normal urge that ought to be dealt with > and controlled. If child sexual abuse isn't sick, I don't know what is. I'll agree insofar as the thoughts being sick. Acting on them is another matter--in my opinion. I know "evil" isn't included in the DSM-III-R. My main objection to the word "sick" is that it's far too often a kind of forensic "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. The statutory DEFINITION of child abuse includes the necessity that the abusers be "the parents or caretakers" of the child in question. What is it otherwise? Rape. Assault. If a guy rapes your kid, or my kid, he's a criminal. If he rapes his OWN kid, he's a poor sick man who deserves therapy, not incarceration. From a legal standpoint, of course--I won't speculate on what else he might theoretically become if he raped your kid or my kid. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Bruce Kroeze 28 Jul 93 09:23:02 Subject: Re: CHILDREN & THELEMA UpdReq > I am glad to hear that. It was explained to me that the OTO only > allowed people over 18 to be around. Only people 18 or over can become *members* of the O.T.O., attending certain functions is a different story. I'm sure there must be a policy as to children taking part in the Mass (as opposed to attending as part of the congretation), but I still haven't heard what it is--or even IF it is, actually! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Bruce Kroeze 28 Jul 93 10:22:04 Subject: Re: KIDS EN MASS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate. But what about "The First > Paradox of Philosophy"? Paraphrased, it is "you must be bound > before you can be free" I'm afraid I'm a bit of a philosophy-dunce. Can you expound further about what sort of "binding" is implied? Or is that the philosophical Rosetta Stone that people have been arguing about forever? ;> From reading further in your post, it seems as if binding is equated in some way with learning--is that accurate or am I reading more (or less) into it than I should be? Purely off the cuff and having no familiarity with the First Paradox, I'd tend to say you must be bound before you can be SET free reads more "true" to me, but it'd probably be better if you were able to explain what binding as you speak of it entails. > We, as adults and responsible parents, do need to bind our children > in various ways so that they might be the free individuals we want them to Hmmm. Binding could mean "restraining," or cohering, restricting, securing... some of the definitions more palatable-sounding than others. You're a parent, yes? Could you give a couple general examples of the type of "binding" that you think would help your child(ren) become the free individuals you want them to be? (I'm not trying to get personal, honest--I tend to understand "concepts" better when I have concrete examples to associate them with) > to be. In theory, schooling/learning should be a continuous > unfolding process, where the child selects what she wishes to learn and > explores all sorts of things. In reality, I've never seen it work that way. > I really wish I had but I have not. Well, as parents we are constrained to various degrees by Johnny Law--I'm thinking specifically of the school system here. I'm required to send her to the local public school, as I don't have the money for private schooling nor the skill to be a home-teacher of certain subjects. Outside that, I think she *does* do just that. My daughter and I have diverse interests. She's perfectly free to think some of my beliefs and opinions are total eye-rollers; and the things that interest her but not me I don't interfere with--I can't always explain them to her, but I don't hinder her seeking explanations from others who can. Being incredibly intelligent--and highly opinionated--she hasn't had much trouble being taken seriously by other adults. There ARE some things I wouldn't allow at her age, but she doesn't seem to be interested in putting them into practice yet, although the theory aspects fascinate her endlessly. I *like* to think (though I could, of course, be wrong) that when Mom & Kid are able to talk about "hot topics" rationally and non-hysterically, the enticement of the forbidden isn't nearly as strong, and that she's thus better able to develop her sense of self and explore her own interests more naturally. > At some point, the child needs to learn some things that she has no > current interest in. Isn't it our duty as thelemites and parents to > bind the child to learn these things so that she may later be free? I may be completely dense, but I keep coming back to public school...where she is required to learn the set curriculum whether it interests her or not. But I can't think of what other types of things parents and Thelemites would have a duty to teach our children. If she hasn't asked about something, I don't bombard her with information about it. What sorts of things? > To confuse things further. If we have that duty...how far does the > duty go? bodily functions? general health/fitness? school subjects? > comparative religion? thelema? Good question! ;> Don't you think the most important way that parents "influence" their kids is by our own example? My daughter is interested in exercise because she's seen me doing aerobics, lifting weights, and practicing asana. (She's also a native Californian, so it's part of the culture.) I *do* think that we have a duty to encourage our children to be physically healthy. But there are ways to do this without forcing some particular manner on them. If my daughter was a spud, I could "encourage" her to be more active in ways that are entertaining to her without breaking out the barbells. Since we don't have a car, we walk together a lot, for instance. Sports and games with other kids would probably be much more palatable than some parental regimen. There's bound to be some way that will encourage physical health and not be onerous to the kid in question. As to healthy eating--hey, I buy it, I cook it. If she wants to eat something else, she's earning her own money by babysitting and getting allowance--she can prepare her own meals. I haven't found the whole stereotype of the kid who detests vegetables and wants to eat candy all day to be true personally. As for school subjects, I've never been hysterical on the subject of "good grades." I'm available to help out with things she's having trouble with, and try in my own way to make school subjects more interesting for her, but she's gotten "bad grades" in a couple subjects and I didn't twist a braid behind it. She *is* required to *attend* school, even if she'd rather be a 5th-grade drop-out. ;> It's a legal requirement and I actually do believe that it's good to have a background in a bunch of different subjects that the teachers can better handle than I can. Bodily functions? Kids are naturally curious in general and will ask questions about pregnancy, sexuality, bodily organs, etc., at a very young age. With the onset of puberty the questions have become more specific and cover a wider area. The learning seems to be evolving on its own without my having to "force" her to learn about anything. Comparative religion and Thelema--I can't of course, speak for all parents but in our case, you betcha. She has a great interest in matters spiritual, and it started very early. When she asks questions which no human being can really KNOW the answers to, I've told her about various 'theories' in a general way, about my own beliefs--if in fact I *have* any--and asked her what SHE thinks. She's fascinated by religion, spirituality, and the same age-old questions that most likely kicked the whole concept of religion off in the first place. My limits are about to be seriously tested though. My daughter has recently become interested in Christianity and attended church a couple times with friends. So far, it's been fun--youth group trips to the beach--and interesting--"They said so-and-so at church, what do you think, Mom?" *If* she decides she wants to be baptised in this church, I'll have to do some hard thinking. My *hope* is that we'll be able to talk about her desire, and try to pin down exactly where it stems from, but if she's insistent I'll have to do the Mom-thang and decide whether to talk her out of it or let it go. Dont'cha HATE when that happens? :/ > When viewed from this angle, some things said earlier in this thread > take on additional nuances. For example, Rose Dawn was worried that she I'm running out of room! Not so much worried about passively encouraging her, as cautious not to allow my own enthusiasm for any particular subject to cloud my logic to the point where I assume my daughter holds identical interests and is enthusiastic about the same things I am. And if your post was "too long" I guess my reply must be the Epic from Hell! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Issac Forrest Area: Thelema To: Jonathon Blake 28 Jul 93 15:19:52 Subject: Re: MULTIPLE TRUTHS UpdReq Thanks for the input and I will get back with you on the results! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: Thelema To: Fir 28 Jul 93 23:11:00 Subject: THE G.D. UpdReq > Maybe my friend was serious when he mentioned initiations via > video tape. He's of a different GD order. I think your friend was serious. Wassail, Grendel Grettisson 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 31 Jul 93 02:50:20 Subject: Re: multiple truths UpdReq 93 Josh. Actually, you fail to understand the situation altogether. You see, the reason for communication in the O.T.O is not to simply "form an alliance" but to encourage and to stimulate kinda like these echoes do. It let's folks know that you're interested in Thelema and the Order. Also, I might wish to point out that the O.T.O is (oof course) an OUTER Order and as such is concerned with the physical/material world in general. This is a major point of the O.T.O's existence that many non-OTO members do not acknowledge. So many folks think that O.T.O is GD or AA or some other Order but it's not. O.T.O is the Old Bavarian Illuminati and all and it's goal is to change the world in a very practical way. Do you understand? I highly reccomend that you make a thorough study of the Constitution of O.T.O and the other documents of the Order to gain better insight into what the Order is here to do. You see, the Order has it's own guidelines. It is not a teaching order. It is not a hand-holding order. The Order really assumes that the member who joins is already a magician of some sort and/or is willing to study to become a magician. Read what Crowley had to write about O.T.O and A.'. A.'. and their differences and you will understand. Really, if someone joins the O.T.O and finds it "too political" for their tastes then they had no business joining the Order to begin with, IMO. The Order is Thelemic but we must also acknowledge that it is a huge structure and as such needs internal support and form. Anyone who denies this hasn't really analysed the situation. BTW, was PVN ever in O.T.O? (Caliphate which, BTW, is the _only_ *real* O.T.O.) ;) Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Walter Five 31 Jul 93 03:04:58 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS UpdReq Indeed. I've seen a few flakes and freaks take about up to First (where they normally bail out) and when they leave, they try to destroy as much as they can before they can get out. Kinda sucks. Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 31 Jul 93 03:12:14 Subject: Re: HYPNOSIS UpdReq Hlpe yourself and don't be. Truth be told, I don't think you've ever seen what one person with a cleptomaniac personallity can do to a library or a temple. I know of a few cases where libraries, temple furnishings, robes, etc. were stolen by persons who were of sufficient degree to be trusted unsupervised, etc. Simply put, some folks do join O.T.O and just go crazy(er). The Current 93 is nothing to be sneezed at at all. Also, I pray thee to note that a person who is "of full age, free, and of good report" may join the order. Coul we not also assume that by "free" we could mean free of personal demons and/or mental malidies? I' I'm not saying that everybody with a mental hang-up should be turned away, just that Lodges, Oases, etcv. etc. should probably do a better job of "meeting" folks to amke sure that these folks are compitent to make their own decisions. This is my #1 rant and that is communication. People really can't understand my true motives on alot of this one because they are rather personal but, if you'll leave me you're private snail-mail address, I'll send you a detailed report on why I take such a major concern on these points. Until then, let us say that I am perceiving all of this from a uniquely quallified perspective. ;) Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Gypse 31 Jul 93 19:04:30 Subject: Unicursal Hexagram Sent UpdReq Where are you with regards to the back-woods swamp-lands? I'm in Alabama. ;) Can you match that? ;) Well, hmm, let's see. The top point is saturn. The Bottom point is Luna. The juncture of the rays in the center is the Sun. Upper Right is Jupiter. Lower right is Venus. Upper left is Mars. Lower left is Mercury. :) The "Unicursal" or "One-Course" Hexagrams represents several unique solutions to age old problems not the least of which is the "unity" of Gods. Most all former Hexagrams were made of "inter-locking triangles" and this gave the Divine Pressence something less than unity. When the Hexagram is one fluid line then Unity is reafirmed. :) This is why the Unicrusal Hexagram is so good for Thelemic Magick.... It affirms unity as of a sexual nature. ;) Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718